Suggestion: Distribute binaries as a "release" archive rather than in git

[alphapapa]

Hi Prot,

Have you considered distributing the built fonts from a "GitHub Release" as an archive rather than adding the built files to git? It could substantially reduce the size of the git repo, for one thing. Also, it could likely be automated through GitHub Actions, which would save you from having to upload the built files at all.

Just an idea, in case you hadn't considered it yet. :)

Thanks for your work!

Adam

[protesilaos]

From: Adam Porter @.***> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 20:14:23 -0800

Hi Prot,

Hello Adam,

Have you considered distributing the built fonts from a "GitHub Release" as an archive rather than adding the built files to git? It could substantially reduce the size of the git repo, for one thing. Also, it could likely be automated through GitHub Actions, which would save you from having to upload the built files at all.

Just an idea, in case you hadn't considered it yet. :)

It's a good idea! I have not done any of this before, so I need to learn how. The practical problem, however, is that this is GitHub-specific and will not work with the default SourceHut repo.

I took a brief look into Git Large File Storage and it seems relevant to my case here. But, again, it needs research and I have not had time for it.

If you have ideas/patches, I am happy to incorporate them. I don't like the current state of the massive git repo and want to make things easier for everyone.

Thanks for your work!

You are welcome!

All the best, Prot

-- Protesilaos Stavrou https://protesilaos.com

[protesilaos]

I decided to opt for Git LFS. Hopefully it all goes well and the repo is easier to manage.

[protesilaos]

As I am pushing the changes now, I notice that Git LFS does not work the way I assumed. I will need to review things.